The COP30 climate summit concluded here on Sunday with a compromised final agreement that drew criticism for lacking a concrete decision on climate finance and a road map for phasing out fossil fuels.
Representatives from nearly 200 countries had burned the midnight oil over the last few days to reach a consensus that looked brittle as several countries raised points of order and objections even after COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago gavelled the deal, signalling the conclusion of the summit.
In a rare exception, the final plenary session had to be suspended after the gavel was brought down. The session was reconvened after extensive backroom deliberations, and the original text was accepted with riders that the contentious issues would be discussed at Bonn next year during the annual mid-year climate meet.
“COP30 showed that climate cooperation is alive and kicking… on to the negotiated text, we reached unanimous agreement on key agenda items like just transition, gender and the tripling of adaptation finance …194 countries agreed that 1.5°C is still our goal,” said Simon Steil, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC).
However, several countries and climate experts were sceptical about the Belem agreement despite acknowledging in private that it was better than the Baku deal in 2024 as it flagged key issues of climate justice.
“There can be no doubt that we collectively must do much more to achieve our Paris Agreement temperature goal of 1.5°C,” a representative from small island vulnerable countries said.
Least developed vulnerable countries and emerging economies, including India, need funds for climate adaptation. However, the Adaptation Fund Board recently told The Telegraph that it could not even secure 40 per cent of its minimum requirement of $300 million for 2026 from COP30.
Officially, India praised the summit outcome by observing that it reaffirmed “commitment to equity, climate justice and global solidarity” in climate negotiations. However, in private, senior Indian negotiators observed that they expected a better deal on adaptation finance.
Key outcomes
Experts, with whom this newspaper spoke, outlined the key outcomes of the summit and their impacts:
- Countries agreed to launch the Global Implementation Accelerator, a two-year process to close the gap between current national climate plans and what is required to keep the 1.5°C target within reach, but the challenge is to turn the suggestion into implementation on the ground.
- An agreement has been reached to develop a just transition mechanism in climate-linked actions, but there are doubts about its efficacy without enough financial support.
- The COP30 president announced the creation of two road maps on deforestation and on transitioning away from fossil fuels, essentially a compromise to counter the criticism for not keeping these agendas under the final UN text as they have no locus standi at the UN level.
- Rich countries committed to a tripling of adaptation finance as part of the $300 billion NCQG (New Collective Unified Goal) by 2035, which was almost a repetition of an earlier COP decision that had missed the target for three successive years.
- Countries agreed on a two-year work programme for the delivery of climate finance, including the $300 billion, as well as a high-level ministerial meeting, which, experts feel, is another exercise to push back the actual action on the ground.
- Brazil launched a new Integrated Forum on Climate Change and Trade to coordinate climate-aligned trade policy. This is the first time that trade has infiltrated climate talks.
Arunabha Ghosh, the South Asia climate envoy to COP30 president and the CEO of climate think tank CEEW, pointed out that “in a year where climate multilateralism has been challenged, getting a reasonable to good deal was better than failing to get any deal in pursuit of the best deal”.
“The framing of just transition is essential. Climate action will only succeed when transitions are inclusive, equitable and aligned with development priorities while building low-carbon economic pathways,” said Chandra
Bhushan, the president of iFOREST, which works on climate issues.
However, many underscored the lack of financial support associated with the proposed actions.
“We leave Belem with a historic victory for people power, but a devastating failure of political will from the Global North to deliver climate ambition and finance. The financial outcome is utterly unacceptable,” said Harjeet Singh, a global climate activist and the founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation.